Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Equality court cases
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Equality court cases
United States of America is a country that has justice and a large legal system. People, who are the citizens of the U.S., are not able to be above the law no matter how successful they are. The Preamble states that the government is to “ secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” (U.S. Constitution 1) The Preamble represents Americans' desire to have a perfect union for themselves under the control of the law. Unfortunately, there are some people that do not conform to the law. For example, in 1972, President Nixon had been involved in the Watergate Scandal. This case is known as United States v. Nixon. President Nixon resigned his job after the Supreme Court made their judgment. This case proves that the equality of American judicial system is fair for everyone. The case of United States v. Nixon is so important because it proves that every U.S. citizens is equal before the law, and nobody is above the law, including the U.S. president. Since the case of Marbury v. Madison was over, the U.S. Supreme Court begins to own a new power called “Judicial Review,” which could help the Supreme court to make sure that the actions or decisions of executive branch and Congress are constitutional. In the case of United States v. Nixon, President Nixon was not supposed to eavesdrop the adversary’s stratagems of the president’s election, so he was charged by the Supreme Court. The chief justice was Burger, and he reaffirmed that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” The Supreme Court is the superior symbol of the U.S. law, so it has duties to protect the justice t... ... middle of paper ... ...vident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”(Declaration of Independence). As far as American people know, the Supreme Court is the representative of the law justice, upheld principle that all men are equal before the law in the case of United States v. Nixon. Nowadays, this case has already been a precedent to show that maybe everyone is not created equal, but people made the law to protect them to be equal. In addition, everyone cannot rely on the position of society standard or any exploits for avoiding the punishment of the law if they violate the law, including the president. So, United States v. Nixon is so important because it demonstrates that nobody or nothing will not be treated differently before the law, and the law is sacred that nobody could be above it, including the U.S president.
Executive privilege has been around since Washington’s first term in office as the first official president of the United States. During Washington’s presidency he set the stage for the use of executive privilege that will evolve over time into something far greater than its initial purpose. Clinton and Nixon utilized executive privilege in a greater sense than Washington, and later Jefferson. They used executive privilege to cover up their wrongdoings and illegal activities. The outcome of the Nixon trial led to the official acknowledgment of executive privilege as a power allotted to the president and other executive officials, but it also noted that the power of executive privilege does not override the need of key information in a criminal investigation.
In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Judicial Branch is the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution" and that it is “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” since it has “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” [*] While it is true that Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers as propaganda to garner support for the Constitution by convincing New Yorkers that it would not take away their rights and liberties, it is also true that Article III of the Constitution was deliberately vague about the powers of the Judicial Branch to allow future generations to decide what exactly those powers should be. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, established the Court’s power of judicial review. However, as Jill Lepore, Harvard professor of American History, argued, “This was such an astonishing thing to do that the Court didn’t declare another federal law unconstitutional for fifty-four years” after declaring the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison. [*Jill Lepore] Alexander Hamilton was incorrect in his assertion that the Judicial Branch is the least dangerous to political rights and the weakest of the three government branches because judicial review has made the Supreme Court more powerful than he had anticipated. From 1803 to today, the controversial practice of judicial activism in the Supreme Court has grown—as exemplified by the differing decisions in Minor v. Happersett and United States v. Virginia—which, in effect, has increased the power of the Supreme Court to boundaries beyond those that Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 78.
In Federalist no. 78 Hamilton explains the powers and duties of the judiciary department as developed in Article III of the Constitution. Article III of the Constitution is very vague on the structure of the federal courts. Hamilton had to convince Americans that the federal courts would not run amok. He presented that the federal courts would not have unlimited power but that they would play a vital role in the constitutional government. Hamilton limited judiciary power by defining it as a text-bound interpretative power. (R.B Bernstein) This essay was intended to endorse as well as interpret the Constitution.
When the rights of the American citizen are on the line than the judiciary should utilize the powers invested in them to protect and enforce what is constitutional. However, in times of controversy, where personal preference or aspects of religious or personal nature are at hand, the judiciary should exercise their power with finesse, thereby acting out judicial restraint. An example of such is in the case of Engel v. Vitale where Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court directing the School District’s principal to read a prayer at the commencement of each school day. In cases that do not regard whether an action is constitutional or not, the judiciary should suppress their power of judicial review.
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law” (The Constitution Article I Section 3). Impeachment is something that doesn’t happen very often, but when it does it is taken very seriously. Impeachment means that basically someone is not doing their job correctly and they have done something to abuse the power and therefore can no longer hold that position anymore. This is one way of removing someone from a position or office without a jury or a debate about it. Stating within the constitution that, “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;…” (The Constitution Article III Section 2). This allows the verdict to not be questioned and overthrown. Impeachment is only necessary when a judge does not follow the oath that they have taken and that the judge has made a
The supporting argument is that Nixon made awful choices, but that should not change the people’s opinion of government. Nixon supporters were disgraced, and his opponents just shook their heads. His supporters trusted him to do the right things, but in the end he just hurt them. While this was a major issue in history, the American people should not look at this one bad apple. If the whole United States thought that everyone in the government was corrupt, then we would have a huge problem.
Presidential power has increased all the time. Compared to the first U.S. president George Washington, the modern presidency has more power and departments (Patterson, 2014). The expansion of presidential power increases the ability of the Executive branch to regulate and protect our society. On the other hand, the president may abuse his presidential power. Like in this case, the President Nixon monitored his staff’s conversation at the Oval Office, and he let some people to set up the recording device in the Watergate complex (“teachingamericanhistory.org”, n.d.). In my opinion, the president Nixon abused his presidential power to set up these recording devices. Even though he had the excuse that the conversations he recorded may contain the national security issue, the method that he get information was not appropriate. He cannot just record everything without other people’s permission to achieve his goal. These recording conversations might have other people’s privacy. Even though the U.S. constitution does not state the word privacy, it can be derived from the Bill of Rights (Patterson, 2014). The people’s privacy is protected now, and any other person cannot invade their privacy without permission. Therefore, the president Nixon violates other people’s privacy, which was against the Constitution. Because the Constitution is the Supreme law of the U.S., the President Nixon had to follow it (Patterson, 2014). Thus, when the presidential power conflicts with the Constitution, anyone in Executive branch should obey the
Madison, declared the power of the courts to interpret the Constitution and affirmed the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review averted the judiciary branch of the inherent weakness and lack of equality in power among the three branches of government. The independence of the Supreme Court is paramount in protecting the civil liberties granted to citizens. The judicial power afforded by means of the doctrine of judicial review is not superior or above the other two branches of government. The Supreme Court’s duty is to nullify legislative acts contrary to the Constitution. Hamilton expounds the power of the courts in the Federalist Papers No. 78, “it only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both”, and judges should regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, (Hamilton, 2008). The Supreme Court’s duty is to nullify legislative acts contrary to the
United States v. Nixon 1. On March 1, 1974 a grand jury returned an indictment charging seven of President Nixon's close aides with various offenses, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and to obstruct justice having to do with the Watergate Affair. 2. After President Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator, he was issued a subpoena by the U.S. District Court to produce in advance of the September 9th trial date, of certain tapes, memoranda, papers, transcripts, or other writings related to certain identified meetings between him and others. 3.
Out of all of the current presidents in our time the most interesting president to explore was President Richard Nixon and out of all of them he was the only one in term to resign. That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment to be executed to the fullest extent of their nature. His poor choices and decisions led to his resignation. Although he did have some good qualities in helping the U.S. the bad however override the good. In the CRS (Congressional Research Service) It states: “ Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal criminal laws that prohibit obstructions of justice. The six most general outlaw obstruction of judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation (18 U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of Congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505), conspiracy to defraud The United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature of statute, rule and common law). Simple perjury in a federal investigation or judicial proceedings carries an extensive fine and up to 5 years in prison.” This was the first article president Richard M. Nixon was charged with by the House of Judiciary Committee. The vote was 27 to 1 for Nixon to be charged with the first article of impeachment, which was Obstruction of Justice. In denial of his liability in part taking in the Watergate scandal by saying he wasn't involved in the scandal He pointed finger at others that were involved in the break-in. However, tapes were found of conversations that proved his involvement and he was going to be impeached. Before he was charged, he made a resignat...
In response to the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 the state of Mississippi brought suit against the President of the United States, Andrew Johnson, claiming that the laws were un-constitutional. The opinion of the court was given by the Chief Justice, and ruled that an injunction against the president could not be made for duties performed by the president within his duties delineated in Article II of the Constitution. In the ruling the court explained the president’s role in this specific case was not ministerial as the state of Mississippi had argued but was rather an act based on his executive and political duties. Quoting Chief Justice Marshall the court explained that an attempt by the judicial branch to oversee such duties would be “an absurd and excessive extravagance.” The opinion further explains that even though the court in this case is not being asked to tell the executive what it must do but rather telling it what it cannot do, the court must not stray from the underlying principle. Thus, the ruling in this case is that the President of the United States cannot be sued to prevent the carrying out of his/her executive responsibilities.
Despite the national attention the Watergate scandal had gained President Nixon, he won the second term presidency. The major problem for Nixon would come later. The investigations of the Watergate scandal lead to the discovery of other criminal acts by officials including Nixon. During the investigation many things begin to surface. It was discovered that documents had been destroyed that may have made a link between Nixon and the Watergate scandal. These documents may have shown that he had some acknowledgement in what had happened. There was evidence that people involved in the Nixon campaign had been wire tapping phones illegally for a long time according to “dummies.com”. The greatest issue would come to light during the 1973 Watergate hearings. During testimonies it came to light that every conversation was recorded in the Oval office according to “study.com”. It was demanded that these tapes be reviewed to learn how much involvement President Nixon had in the Watergate burglary. The President felt that he had the right to withhold these tapes through what he referred to as executive privilege. This means that if it is the best interest of the public the president has the right to keep information from the
Judiciary as the Most Powerful Branch of Government In answering this question I will first paint a picture of the power that the court holds, and decide whether this is governmental power. Then I will outline the balances that the court must maintain in its decision making and therefore the checks on its actions as an institution that governs America. "Scarcely any political question arises that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question." (Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America) If we take Tocqueville on his word then the American Judiciary truly is in a powerful position.
The court determines whether on not an action is constitutional or not through the process of judicial review. Not only do they keep the Legislative and Executive branch in line, they keep other courts in line. Many and very few cases require the Supreme Court to review and overturn decision. Example are the Miranda v. Arizona cases where the police was in the wrong by violating Miranda’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment therefore ruling in Miranda’s favor. Also the Weeks v. United States case was an example of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment being violated was again ruling in the defendent’s favour. Finally, the Plessey v. Furguson case was a little different really displaying the courts power to interpret laws and ruling in the prosecuter’s favour. The Judicial Branch is certainly not the weakest branch and has a more important role than many people
The judicial power, also known back then as The Weakest Branch, was created to achieve an effective collaboration of the powers, what we call now Check and Balances. One of the framers of the Judicial Power was John Marshall. Chief Justice John Marshall is one of the main figures in the history of the US Judicial System. He was the youngest Chief Justices in the history of the United States and was the developer of the most important power of the Supreme Court, The Judicial Review.